the funny thing is, there is terrifying research about how to influence people's beliefs, preferences and behaviours, using stuff as simple as the order and duration in which 2 images are displayed to someone (why advertisers don't know this is bewildering).
nobody mentions that stuff though... (maybe cracked did, now that I think about it...)
Originally posted by DeanoMy master's thesis investigated NLP. Results were not statistically significant, ie, there was no significant relationship between eye-movement and predicate use (the cornerstone of NLP theory). However, after debriefing my subjects and integrating what they told me, in my conclusion I mentioned that a very possible reason the results were not significant was because other factors (eg, cultural determinants) can influence what NLP claims to occur.
why? you think its not real?😆
TV is highly manipulative, but I doubt NLP is a main tactic, especially since it highlights differences in how people build mental maps, and TV seeks commonalities to reach the widest possible audiences.
Originally posted by Mindship
My master's thesis investigated NLP. Results were not statistically significant, ie, there was no significant relationship between eye-movement and predicate use (the cornerstone of NLP theory). However, after debriefing my subjects and integrating what they told me, in my conclusion I mentioned that a very possible reason the results were not significant was because other factors (eg, cultural determinants) can influence what NLP claims to occur.
admittedly, the Wiki for NLP doesn't do a good job of explaining the theory, but I do have some experience in eye movements and saccades, and I have to say, it seems absurd that they reflect some "subconsciousness", in fact, attentional evaluations have been shown to constantly be the best predictors.
Originally posted by inimalistWiki...meps.
admittedly, the Wiki for NLP doesn't do a good job of explaining the theory, but I do have some experience in eye movements and saccades, and I have to say, it seems absurd that they reflect some "subconsciousness", in fact, attentional evaluations have been shown to constantly be the best predictors.
Predicate selection and eye movement (not saccades) in NLP are supposedly linked to the dominant sensory mode a person uses to build an internal representation of the world. Eg, I explain this to you, and you respond, "I see what you mean." This suggests a mainly visual map. Further, if I ask you a question, and your eyes move up and left, or right (I forget which), this also (supposedly) reflects a mainly visual mental map. Accordingly, the two behaviors should correlate. In my study, they did not, not significantly.
Here's what I thought was the really interesting stuff. The small testing room had a door off to the side; I had moved the examination table to the other side of the room for ease of entry/exit, ie, the table was closer to one wall than the other. Upon debriefing, one subject, eg, said the reason she kept looking to one side of the room more than the other was because she felt more comfortable looking at the far wall.
Go figure. There were other contaminating variables as well, most of which even surprised my professors. Nonetheless, one felt the study was still good enough to submit for publishing.
I do think there is something to 'body language' (to use the vernacular). But many variables apparently come into play, some of which may be more dominant than others, depending on the situation.
Originally posted by Mindship
Wiki...meps.
hmmm, i tend to tout the praises of wiki, especially if you look at how in depth their information about neuroscience is (my personal bias admittedly). Tbh, though, the last couple of issues you have given me to look up haven't been very clear at all, so maybe the stuff I look up most often is just an anomoly...
Originally posted by Mindship
Predicate selection and eye movement (not saccades)
ah, my bad, how did your lab differentiate between saccade and overt shift (I don't know if our jargon matches, overt meaning a deliberate shift in eye gaze based on top down stuff...)
in NLP are supposedly linked to the dominant sensory mode a person uses to build an internal representation of the world. Eg, I explain this to you, and you respond, "I see what you mean." This suggests a mainly visual map.
but, "i see what you mean" is a surface structure for "I understand", why would surface structure dictate deep structure, that goes against most linguistic understandings, and certainly against the rock vs feather in a vaccum demonstration I think I made in another thread.
Originally posted by Mindship
Further, if I ask you a question, and your eyes move up and left, or right (I forget which), this also (supposedly) reflects a mainly visual mental map. Accordingly, the two behaviors should correlate. In my study, they did not, not significantly.
interesting, I actually agree with this generally... If someone has built a visual map of information, that would be expected...
Might it be that you are expecting too much to be mapped visually? sensory corticies don't, themselves, dictate a lot of meaning based information, and thus, visual maps are based more on attentional salience than emotive (ok, sure, those aren't entirely different concepts, but at low level vision, they are somewhat).
Like, all I'm saying, is because eye movements tend to work based on communication between the parietal (attentiona/spatial) cortex and the frontal eye fields (FEF), maybe this relationship you are looking for is mediated in the temporal cortex, or limbic system, that isn't necessarily as involved in the deoployment of visual attention?
Originally posted by Mindship
Here's what I thought was the really interesting stuff. The small testing room had a door off to the side; I had moved the examination table to the other side of the room for ease of entry/exit, ie, the table was closer to one wall than the other. Upon debriefing, one subject, eg, said the reason she kept looking to one side of the room more than the other was because she felt more comfortable looking at the far wall.Go figure. There were other contaminating variables as well, most of which even surprised my professors. Nonetheless, one felt the study was still good enough to submit for publishing.
ha, you just made me think about deconstructing the experiments I'm doing now, where we use infrared to monitor hand movements and an eye-tracker to monitor eye movements.
While that data is invaluable, having those machines hooked up to you is going to introduce some demand characteristics... I'm going to see if my prof would be willing to let me test those...
Originally posted by Mindship
I do think there is something to 'body language' (to use the vernacular). But many variables apparently come into play, some of which may be more dominant than others, depending on the situation.
see, after watching the first part of that video, most of what that guy is talking about is stuff like framing or other rhetorical devices, where you frame a debate or ellicit the responses you want from an oponent. That stuff has been around since the greeks...
body language, phrasing, sure, i wouldn't disagree, those are all hugely important, if you want to make it look like you have the better position
Originally posted by inimalistI usually take Wiki with a grain of salt. Some things seem more on target than others. My guess is, the less 'popular' or less 'in paradigm' the topic, the harder it is to find consistent info. NLP, I believe, is something that is generally not taken seriously these days, at least not within professional circles. It was initially developed as an attempt to analyze why some therapists -- especially hypnotherapists -- are more effective than others: I suppose one could say it looked at 'language resonance'. But in retrospect, it seems like an attempt to overly simplify the multi-level dynamics between therapist and client.
hmmm, i tend to tout the praises of wiki, especially if you look at how in depth their information about neuroscience is (my personal bias admittedly). Tbh, though, the last couple of issues you have given me to look up haven't been very clear at all, so maybe the stuff I look up most often is just an anomoly...
Originally posted by inimalistDon't saccades -- short, quick movements -- usually manifest in tracking/scanning? What I did (in this part of the study) was simply ask the subject a question then 'watched them think' (recorded which direction their eye movements took) as they formulated a response. I did not direct eye movement and made sure the subjects had no idea I was even interested in eye movement (the latter was divulged during the debriefing phase).
ah, my bad, how did your lab differentiate between saccade and overt shift (I don't know if our jargon matches, overt meaning a deliberate shift in eye gaze based on top down stuff...)
Originally posted by inimalistH'm. If I understand you correctly, my 2-cents is as follows: I would say that "I see what you mean" would be the surface structure for the deep structure of actually understanding, not the expression, "I understand," which would be another surface structure manifestation (see below for more comment on this). Ie, the person understands, and the verbalization of understanding is shaped by personal predisposition for one mode over another.
in NLP are supposedly linked to the dominant sensory mode a person uses to build an internal representation of the world. Eg, I explain this to you, and you respond, "I see what you mean." This suggests a mainly visual map.but, "i see what you mean" is a surface structure for "I understand", why would surface structure dictate deep structure, that goes against most linguistic understandings.
In any event, you're bringing up another contaminating variable: most responses I got were things like "I understand," which I interpreted as a mostly 'digital' mental-map modality. In other words, because my subjects were all college students, their 'greater cerebralness' (as opposed to the general, more heterogeneous population) may've tended to supercede mostly sensory construction. Well, that explanation at least got me through my thesis defense.
Originally posted by inimalistThis could well be one of those other factors which can supercede what NLP claims. And for what it's worth, the visual modality was not the only one: the other NLP modes were auditory and kinesthetic/tactile.
interesting, I actually agree with this generally... If someone has built a visual map of information, that would be expected...Might it be that you are expecting too much to be mapped visually? sensory corticies don't, themselves, dictate a lot of meaning based information, and thus, visual maps are based more on attentional salience than emotive (ok, sure, those aren't entirely different concepts, but at low level vision, they are somewhat).
Originally posted by inimalistBrain stuff ... pardon me while I try to pretend I understand. Certainly this could be another reason why NLP should not be lauded.
Like, all I'm saying, is because eye movements tend to work based on communication between the parietal (attentiona/spatial) cortex and the frontal eye fields (FEF), maybe this relationship you are looking for is mediated in the temporal cortex, or limbic system, that isn't necessarily as involved in the deoployment of visual attention?
Originally posted by inimalistIt's amazing what can pop out of left field when you think you have all bases covered.
ha, you just made me think about deconstructing the experiments I'm doing now, where we use infrared to monitor hand movements and an eye-tracker to monitor eye movements.While that data is invaluable, having those machines hooked up to you is going to introduce some demand characteristics... I'm going to see if my prof would be willing to let me test those...
Originally posted by inimalistThis video...oversimplification/overintellectualization, yeah, in an attempt to make it look 'no contest'.
see, after watching the first part of that video, most of what that guy is talking about is stuff like framing or other rhetorical devices, where you frame a debate or ellicit the responses you want from an oponent. That stuff has been around since the greeks...body language, phrasing, sure, i wouldn't disagree, those are all hugely important, if you want to make it [b]look
like you have the better position [/B]
Originally posted by Bardock42
OH GOD, the ok symbol is 666...it has somehow power over people's minds...he's using his sorcery to manipulate his mind...
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, actually. Unless you have some accredation in linguistics, cognitive science, or clinical psychology, you don't have the background in relevant subjects to dismiss others' opinions, simply because they don't study the field. [b]you don't study the ****ing field.That type of argument style does get under my skin, because people who do actually have a great deal of expertise in a field should be helping others understand it, not using their knowledge as a badge of supremecy
did I upset you? [/B]
i dont dismiss anyones opinions. i have studied enough to know its real
my intuition tells me and that is enough
dont be upset with this.
Originally posted by Mindship
Don't saccades -- short, quick movements -- usually manifest in tracking/scanning? What I did (in this part of the study) was simply ask the subject a question then 'watched them think' (recorded which direction their eye movements took) as they formulated a response. I did not direct eye movement and made sure the subjects had no idea I was even interested in eye movement (the latter was divulged during the debriefing phase).
hmmm, so you are saying that the deployment of the eyes during information processing (thinking) underlies the most available sensory modality during speech? Or that when you prime a particular modality (seeing), those sensory apparati will behave in a way that underlies how they are thinking about the problem?
Originally posted by Mindship
H'm. If I understand you correctly, my 2-cents is as follows: I would say that "I see what you mean" would be the surface structure for the deep structure of actually understanding, not the expression, "I understand," which would be another surface structure manifestation (see below for more comment on this). Ie, the person understands, and the verbalization of understanding is shaped by personal predisposition for one mode over another.
not necessarily, if I understand Chomsky on this point, the deep structure would be "I understand", which is the linguistic representation of understanding. It would almost be like surface -> deep -> actual cognitive processes.
underlying information processing systems come to the understanding, that is sent to low level semantic areas, which would produce the deep structure of the linguistic action (saying I understand), than specific linguistic areas would attach the surface structure of the specific words used to convey this.
Originally posted by Mindship
In any event, you're bringing up another contaminating variable: most responses I got were things like "I understand," which I interpreted as a mostly 'digital' mental-map modality. In other words, because my subjects were all college students, their 'greater cerebralness' (as opposed to the general, more heterogeneous population) may've tended to supercede mostly sensory construction. Well, that explanation at least got me through my thesis defense.
🙂 nice
ya, my only issue would be, this system seems to be based on bottom up qualities of the command you give them. The way people "cerebralize" those things should come after any sort of sensory mapping. In fact, imho at least, NLP would suggest that people with greater cerebralness would be at a greater risk of this, because any sort of expanded processing of the command, if there were such a connection between saying "see" and activating a visual understanding, would be done through these visual mapping systems that are already activated. Its not like there is this system of "thinking" that can be separated from these lower systems, so I think it would be highly unlikely that university students would have developed such a system. Like, afaik, it is impossible to "intellect" your way out of normal attentional biases.
Originally posted by Mindship
This could well be one of those other factors which can supercede what NLP claims. And for what it's worth, the visual modality was not the only one: the other NLP modes were auditory and kinesthetic/tactile.
that brings up a totally different issue too, how does an auditory command invoke a visual-centric information processing system?
Originally posted by Mindship
Brain stuff ... pardon me while I try to pretend I understand. Certainly this could be another reason why NLP should not be lauded.
all I am saying with this is that eye movements tend to tell us about things like, what a person is paying attention to, what is salient at the moment. The type of (excuse me if i misunderstand) content or semantic based stuff is generally dealt with in what is called the temporal lobe.
in essence, it seems you are trying to measure a bias in temporal lobe function by drawing inferences from the spatial/attentional processing going on in the parietal.
That being said, I don't know a lot about the deployment of eyes during non-visual information processing, which might be interesting and relevant, if it wasn't that (again, unless I read it wrong) NLP suggests that this processing is actually visual, just "inwardly" visual?
Originally posted by Mindship
It's amazing what can pop out of left field when you think you have all bases covered.
"all my bases covered"? you have way too much faith in me 😛
Originally posted by inimalistSounds more like the latter. A person predisposed to think visually would unconsciously select the predicates which reflect the visual modality. Visual Thinker ---> Word Selection.
hmmm, so you are saying that the deployment of the eyes during information processing (thinking) underlies the most available sensory modality during speech? Or that when you prime a particular modality (seeing), those sensory apparati will behave in a way that underlies how they are thinking about the problem?
Originally posted by inimalistIf this is how Chomsky uses "deep structure," I see your point. But how would Chomsky regard prelinguistic-presymbolic "image mind," where "deep structure" may refer to the event of understanding on a baser level, later to be at the core of any cognitive-verbal expression? A baby understands the world before she can speak about it. In the Chomskian sense, a baby has no deep structures, though she is map-making as she interacts with and understands the world.
not necessarily, if I understand Chomsky on this point, the deep structure would be "I understand", which is the linguistic representation of understanding. It would almost be like surface -> deep -> actual cognitive processes.underlying information processing systems come to the understanding, that is sent to low level semantic areas, which would produce the deep structure of the linguistic action (saying I understand), than specific linguistic areas would attach the surface structure of the specific words used to convey this.
I don't know what NLP would say. So largely, I'm giving you my interpretation.
Originally posted by inimalistIf I grok this, I think I agree with you. AFAIK, I don't think NLP addresses that, generally speaking, people are verbal-visual thinkers (inner dialogue / inner cinema). Barring the obvious (eg, a blind person), other modalities perhaps play relatively minor roles. College students may be/sound more intellectual because, well, they're in an environment which selects for this.
ya, my only issue would be, this system seems to be based on bottom up qualities of the command you give them. The way people "cerebralize" those things should come after any sort of sensory mapping. In fact, imho at least, NLP would suggest that people with greater cerebralness would be at a greater risk of this, because any sort of expanded processing of the command, if there were such a connection between saying "see" and activating a visual understanding, would be done through these visual mapping systems that are already activated. Its not like there is this system of "thinking" that can be separated from these lower systems, so I think it would be highly unlikely that university students would have developed such a system. Like, afaik, it is impossible to "intellect" your way out of normal attentional biases.
Originally posted by inimalistI do not know what NLP's response would be.
that brings up a totally different issue too, how does an auditory command invoke a visual-centric information processing system?
Originally posted by inimalistCool.
all I am saying with this is that eye movements tend to tell us about things like, what a person is paying attention to, what is salient at the moment. The type of (excuse me if i misunderstand) content or semantic based stuff is generally dealt with in what is called the temporal lobe.in essence, it seems you are trying to measure a bias in temporal lobe function by drawing inferences from the spatial/attentional processing going on in the parietal.